This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
All posts should follow this basic structure:
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
Relevant comms
Today, i couldnt upvote a post from anarchymemes@anarchist.nexus so i decided to check it out on my pc. i noticed that i was banned from the com even though i havent posted anything on the com nor the instance. i guess the reason for the ban is that i posted a meme to different comm a while ago. The meme is homophobic but i didnt know it when i was posting it. After finding out it was homophonic, i added a disclaimer to my post.
i dont think i deserved the ban, and i want to hear your thoughts.
I was responding to your explanation as presented.
My own feeling is that not giving anyone a chance to take responsibility works against our interests of fostering inclusivity and responsibility. It is essential to keep open space for discussion with those who may be misguided or unthoughtful but are otherwise generally reasonable.
if you want spaces that remain open to a degree for liberals or tankies, then there is !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, both places where agitprop that you will often find in !anarchymemes@anarchist.nexus is not welcome. the only reason c/anarchymemes is open to the public is that current Piefed limitations do not allow us to also restrict federation of the community to trusted instances as well, so it has to be public in order for those from dbzer0 and quokk.au to post.
to put it in plain english, the whole point of the comm is to post memes that will piss off liberals and tankies. serious discussion of any kind is forbidden as there are preexisting communities for that. the sidebar quite clearly lays that out. we aren't here for people who don't share our values, and we aren’t here for anything more than memes.
Even if all of it is true, as you say, preemptively banning users who never posted feels very abrasive, even aggressive. I am afraid it may tend to engender negative sentiments about movements, by creating an impression that anarchists or leftists generally tend to be unwelcoming or uncompromising, just as might be actually the case for tankies. We want to maintain the appearance as a group of being open to discussion.
The question arises of whether preemptive banning is constructive, considering the power remains to ban someone later, as actually needed, as well as to remove objectionable content if submitted.
the user in question had upvoted posts in the comm in the past. they only noticed the ban because they tried to upvote again. the ban prevents them from doing that in the future.
May I ask, what is the harm in the user casting such votes?
why would anyone posting in an anarchist comm want upvotes or potentially comments on their meme from someone who posted a homophobic meme? if trump walked up to you and said "good job on those memes", would you appreciate it? I seriously doubt you would.
I feel the analogy rather weak.
I very much would like to understand whether it has caused any actual harm.
well, I think you're entitled to feel that. and should you ever become an active member of the community, I'll give your opinion some consideration. we do not, as a general rule, worry too much about what outside voices feel about how we run our community. it's a comm for ragebait anarchist memes, it's a given that some people aren't going to like the things that go down there.
I will add that I feel the isolationist attitude is misguided.
You could operate an unfederated instance. However, if you are integrated into the Fediverse, then you are benefiting as a community from the large collection of other instances with which you are federated. Such advantages are offered with an expectation of treating everyone participating with the greatest reasonable consideration, and of preventing unnecessary antagonism.
Freedom of association is not freedom from every unwanted responsibility. It is necessary to acknowledge that our complex systems of interdependence require, for their function, responsible participation. Only considering your inner circle is distorting the meaning, toward your own advantage, of the principles you advocate.